Opportunities for prevention and intervention with young children: lessons from the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect

Chinese Medicine

Andreas Jud¹  Nico Trocmé¹  Melanie Pillhofer³  Kate Allan²  Jennifer Ma²  Barbara Fallon² 

[1] Centre of Research for Children and Families, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada;Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto, 246 Bloor Street W, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V4, Canada;Clinic for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany

关键词: Ongoing services;    Decision-making;    Referral source;    Young parents;    Infants;    Child maltreatment;    Child welfare;   

Others  :  791116
DOI  :  10.1186/1753-2000-7-4

 received in 2012-10-31, accepted in 2013-02-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The most effective way to provide support to caregivers with infants in order to promote good health, social, emotional and developmental outcomes is the subject of numerous debates in the literature. In Canada, each province adopts a different approach which range from universal to targeted programs. Nonetheless, each year a group of vulnerable infants is identified to the child welfare system with concerns about their well-being and safety. This study examines maltreatment-related investigations in Canada involving children under the age of one year to identify which factors determine service provision at the conclusion of the investigation.

Methods

A secondary analysis of the Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect CIS-2008 (PHAC, 2010) dataset was conducted. Multivariate analyses were conducted to understand the profile of investigations involving infants (n=1,203) and which predictors were significant in the decision to transfer a case to ongoing services at the conclusion of the investigation. Logistic Regression and Classification and Regression Trees (CART) were conducted to examine the relationship between the outcome and predictors.

Results

The results suggest that there are three main sources that refer infants to the Canadian child welfare system: hospital, police, and non-professionals. Infant maltreatment-related investigations involve young caregivers who struggle with poverty, single-parenthood, drug/solvent and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, lack of social supports, and intimate partner violence. Across the three referral sources, primary caregiver risk factors are the strongest predictor of the decision to transfer a case to ongoing services.

Conclusions

Multivariate analyses indicate that the presence of infant concerns does not predict ongoing service provision, except when the infant is identified with positive toxicology at birth. The opportunity for early intervention and the need to tailor interventions for specific caregiver risk factors is discussed.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Fallon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Olds D, Henderson C, Chamberlin R, Tatelbaum R: Preventing child abuse and neglect: a randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics 1986, 78(1):65-78.
• [2]Klein S, Harden BJ: Building the evidence base regarding infant/toddlers in the child welfare system. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33:1333-1336.
• [3]Williams G, Tonmyr L, Jack SM, Fallon B, MacMillan HL: Determinants of maltreatment substantiation in a sample of infants involved with the child welfare system. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33(8):1345-1353.
• [4]Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Sinha V, Black T, Fast E, Felstiner C, Hélie S, Turcotte D, Weightman P, Douglas J, Holroyd J: Chapter 2: Methodology. In Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect – 2008: Major Findings. Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada; 010:12-21.
• [5]Fallon B, Trocmé N, MacLaurin B, Sinha V, Black T, Felstiner C, Schumaker K, Van Wert M, Herbert A, Petrowski N, Daciuk J, Lee B, DuRoss C, Johnston A: Ontario Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect-2008 (OIS‐2008). Toronto, ON: Child Welfare Research Portal; 2010.
• [6]Ministry of Children and Family Development: British Columbia’s Family Development Model 2004. http://www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/child_protection/pdf/fdr_overview_internet.pdf webcite
• [7]Alberta Human Services: Alberta response model 2012. http://child.alberta.ca/home/790.cfm webcite
• [8]Ministry of Children and Youth Services: Child Protection Standards in Ontario. Ontario, CA: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2007.
• [9]Palusci VJ: Risk factors and services for child maltreatment among infants and young children. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33(8):1374-1382.
• [10]Casanueva CE, Cross TP, Ringeisen H: Developmental needs and individualized family service plans among infants and toddlers in the child welfare system. Child Maltreat 2008, 13(3):245-258.
• [11]Tonmyr L, Williams G, Jack SM, MacMillan HL: Infant placement in canadian child maltreatment-related investigations. Int J Ment Health Addiction 2011, 9(5):441-459.
• [12]McCrae JS, Cahalane H, Fusco RA: Directions for developmental screening in child welfare based on the ages and stages questionnaires. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33(8):1412-1418.
• [13]Administration for Children and Families: National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Research Brief: No.8 Need for Early Intervention Services Among Infants and Toddlers in Child Welfare. United States: Cornell University; 2007.
• [14]Olds D, Eckenrode J, Henderson C, Kitzman H, Powers J, Cole R, Sidora K, Morris P, Pettitt LM, Luckey D: Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. J Am Med Assoc 1997, 278(8):637-643.
• [15]Heckman JJ, Masterov DV: The productivity argument for investing in young children. Working paper 13016. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2007.
• [16]Public Health Agency of Canada: Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect – 2008: Major findings. Ottawa: PHAC; 2010.
• [17]Walsh A, Ollenburger JC: Essential Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences A Conceptual Approach. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2001.
• [18]Steinberg D, Colla P: CART-Classification and regression trees. San Diego, CA: Salford Systems; 1997.
• [19]Harden BJ, Klein S: Infants/toddlers in child welfare: What have we learned and where do we go from here? Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33(8):1464-1468.
• [20]Zhou AZ, Chilvers M: Infants in australian out-of-home care. Br J Soc Work 2011, 40(1):26-43.
• [21]Belsky J: Child maltreatment: An ecological integration. Am Psychol 1980, 35:320-335.
• [22]Segal L, Opie R, Dalziel K: Theory? The missing link in understanding the performance of neonate/ infant home-visiting programs to prevent child maltreatment: a systematic review. Milbank Q 2012, 90(1):47-106.
• [23]Fantuzzo JW, Perlman SM, Dobbins EK: Types and timing of child maltreatment and early school success: a population-based investigation. Child Youth Serv Rev 2011, 33(8):1404-1411.